| Course | NUR-5300 Evidence-Based Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Evidence-based practice proposal |
| Length | About 1,084 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 5300 Module 6
An Adjunct, Not a Replacement: An Evidence-Based Practice Proposal for Alcohol-Pad Inhalation in an Outpatient Surgery Recovery Unit
Student Name
Master of Science in Nursing (MSN), Thomas Edison State University
NUR-5300: Evidence-Based Nursing Practice
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
An Adjunct, Not a Replacement: An Evidence-Based Practice Proposal for Alcohol-Pad Inhalation in an Outpatient Surgery Recovery Unit
This proposal completes the course's work on postoperative nausea in our ambulatory surgery center's recovery unit. It is addressed to the PACU nurse manager, the anesthesia medical director and the center's quality committee, and it asks for approval of a three-month pilot of a nurse-delivered protocol in which patients with postoperative nausea are offered inhaled isopropyl alcohol while the ordered rescue antiemetic is prepared. The proposal summarizes the problem and the evidence, states the recommendation and its limits, describes implementation, sets out evaluation and cost, and explains how the decision to continue will be made.
Problem and Evidence in Brief
A three-month review of our records showed roughly fourteen percent of recovering patients charted as nauseated even after prophylaxis, most of them treated with rescue drugs, and roughly half an hour added before they were ready to leave in reaching discharge readiness for those treated. Rescue options are limited to one additional drug class, and a second drug requires a new order.
The evidence on inhaled isopropyl alcohol is promising but incomplete. Pooled trials in a Cochrane review, rated moderate in quality, favored it over standard drugs for how fast nausea eased and how often rescue doses were needed (Hines et al., 2018). An emergency department trial found substantially greater nausea reduction within thirty minutes with alcohol, with or without oral ondansetron, than with ondansetron alone (April et al., 2018). However, the largest trial in postoperative patients found no significant benefit of alcohol over saline (Hunt et al., 2013), and no published trial has paired alcohol with an intravenous rescue drug in a recovery unit. The intervention is safe in every study, costs a few cents and takes seconds to offer.
Patients and staff both feel the problem. Patients describe waiting for a second drug while nauseated as one of the worst parts of their day, and nurses describe the frustration of having nothing to offer while an order is requested. A low-risk adjunct that can be offered immediately addresses that gap even before its effect on nausea scores is known.
Recommendation and Its Limits
The recommendation is to pilot isopropyl alcohol inhalation as an adjunct to standard rescue treatment for adults with nausea scores of four or more in phase one recovery, following the protocol developed in the previous module: offered in parallel with the rescue antiemetic, never in place of it, with reassessment at ten and thirty minutes and documentation in the PACU flowsheet.
The recommendation stays deliberately inside the evidence. It does not propose replacing rescue antiemetics, because the evidence in postoperative patients is conflicting. It does not propose changing prophylaxis, because the evidence concerns treatment. It does not claim that alcohol will shorten length of stay, because no study measured that in our setting. It proposes a low-risk adjunct whose local effect will be measured before any wider adoption, which is what the strength of the evidence justifies.
Implementation Plan
Implementation will take place over sixteen weeks. Weeks one to four are preparation: the protocol is finalized and co-signed by the anesthesia medical director, the electronic flowsheet is modified to prompt nausea scores at ten and thirty minutes, and baseline data are collected on all patients with nausea under current practice. Weeks five and six are education: a fifteen-minute in-service for all fourteen PACU nurses covering the evidence, the protocol and the script for patients, with one champion trained per shift. Weeks seven to sixteen are the pilot. Ownership of the protocol and of the data review sits with the PACU educator, the charge nurse confirms supplies and adherence each shift, and I will lead the pilot and compile the weekly data.
Communication with patients is part of implementation. Nurses will use a brief, consistent script that presents the alcohol pad as something that may help while medicine is prepared, and patients may decline without any effect on their rescue treatment. Patient choice is recorded so that the data distinguish patients who declined from those not offered.
Evaluation and Cost
Success is judged first on how far nausea scores fall between the first report and the thirty-minute check, compared between the baseline period and the pilot. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients requiring a second rescue antiemetic and how long patients take, after first reporting nausea, to meet discharge criteria. A process measure tracks the percentage of eligible patients offered alcohol with both reassessments documented, and a balancing measure tracks how long rescue drugs take to reach the patient after nausea is first reported, to confirm that the adjunct does not delay medication. Based on our volume, about seventy-five patients a month report nausea, so the ten-week pilot should include roughly 180 patients.
Weekly results will be displayed on run charts, which Perla et al. (2011) present as an easy method for telling a real shift from chance, using a few rules grounded in probability; a long unbroken run of weeks below the baseline median, for instance, signals change. Run charts suit a single-unit pilot better than a formal statistical comparison, because they show change over time and can detect early problems. The direct cost is minimal: prep pads cost a few cents each and are already stocked. The main cost is about four hours of paid education time and the educator's time for data review, which the unit's education budget can absorb.
Data will be collected from the flowsheet by the educator each Monday and reviewed with the charge nurses at the weekly huddle, so that problems with adherence or documentation are fixed during the pilot rather than discovered at the end.
Decision Rules and Dissemination
The decision to continue will be made at the end of the pilot using rules agreed in advance. The protocol will be adopted permanently if nausea scores at thirty minutes improve compared with baseline, if the proportion needing a second rescue drug does not increase, and if time to rescue antiemetic administration does not lengthen. If nausea scores do not improve, the protocol will be discontinued, since the evidence does not justify continuing an ineffective practice even at low cost. If process adherence is low, the team will review barriers before judging effectiveness. Results will be shared with the center's quality committee and staff, and, if the findings are consistent, prepared as a poster for a perianesthesia nursing conference, adding a small piece of local evidence to a literature that lacks recovery unit data.
References
April, M. D., Oliver, J. J., Davis, W. T., Ong, D., Simon, E. M., Ng, P. C., & Hunter, C. J. (2018). Aromatherapy versus oral ondansetron for antiemetic therapy among adult emergency department patients: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 72(2), 184-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.01.016
Hines, S., Steels, E., Chang, A., & Gibbons, K. (2018). Aromatherapy for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018(3), Article CD007598. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007598.pub3
Hunt, R., Dienemann, J., Norton, H. J., Hartley, W., Hudgens, A., Stern, T., & Divine, G. (2013). Aromatherapy as treatment for postoperative nausea: A randomized trial. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 117(3), 597-604. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e31824a0b1c
Perla, R. J., Provost, L. P., & Murray, S. K. (2011). The run chart: A simple analytical tool for learning from variation in healthcare processes. BMJ Quality & Safety, 20(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs.2009.037895
What the NUR 5300 Module 6 instructions ask for
The final module of NUR-5300 typically asks for a complete evidence-based practice proposal. Directions in many sections ask for a problem statement, evidence summary, recommendation, implementation plan with timeline and stakeholders, evaluation plan with measures, resources and cost, and plans for sustainability and dissemination, sometimes in a set length or as a presentation. Graduate mentors look hard at whether the request outruns the studies. The TESU course site specifies the format and audience; check whether the proposal should be written to a named decision maker and whether a budget table or timeline graphic is required. Write the proposal to the people who can say yes.
How the NUR 5300 Module 6 example is put together
The proposal names its audience and request in the first paragraph. A brief problem and evidence section restates the unit data and summarizes supporting and conflicting studies together. The recommendation section defines the adjunct protocol and then lists three things the proposal does not claim, each traced to something the studies did not test. Implementation runs over sixteen weeks with named owners and an education plan. Evaluation sets outcome, secondary, process and balancing measures, estimates the sample from unit volume, explains run charts and gives the cost. The final section states decision rules agreed in advance and a dissemination plan. The three limits of the recommendation are stated before the implementation plan.
Where the marks sit in the NUR 5300 Module 6 rubric
Evidence-based practice proposals are usually assessed on the problem statement, the accuracy and balance of the evidence summary, alignment between the strength of evidence and the recommendation, the implementation plan, the evaluation plan, resources and sustainability, dissemination, and writing. Mentors check alignment closely: a recommendation stronger than the evidence costs points even if the plan is detailed. Evaluation earns full credit with defined outcome, process and balancing measures, a realistic sample and an analysis method suited to the setting. Decision rules set before the data arrive demonstrate rigor. A clear audience and request make the proposal read as ready to submit. Clear decision rules show that the pilot could fail and that failure would be acted on.
NUR 5300 Module 6 help from the desk
Final proposals commonly overstate the evidence, recommending a practice as proven when the studies are small or conflicting. Spell out the limits of the studies, then make the request no bigger than they allow. Another frequent problem is an evaluation plan with outcomes but no baseline, sample estimate or method of analysis. Run charts are a practical option for a single unit. Students also forget to say what will happen if the change does not work. Write decision rules in advance. Name owners who will remain after the project. The desk can turn your earlier module work into a complete proposal for your own unit on request. Add the decision you will make if the results are disappointing.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More NUR 5300 and Master of Science in Nursing sample papers
- NUR 5300 Module 1: Clinical Question Development
- NUR 5300 Module 2: Evidence Search Strategy
- NUR 5300 Module 3: Randomized Trial Appraisal
- NUR 5300 Module 4: Evidence Synthesis Across Studies
- NUR 5300 Module 5: Translating Evidence Into Practice
- NUR 5290 Module 3: Regulation and Oversight Map
- NUR 5310 Module 3: Privacy and Security Analysis
- NUR 5160 Module 2: Subjective History Write-Up
- NUR 5820 Module 1: Budget Vocabulary Paper
NUR 5300 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 5300 Module 6 sample paper?
The full proposal is above, annotated sheet by sheet. It proposes an adjunct isopropyl alcohol protocol for a PACU; adapt its structure to the practice change your evidence supports.
How do I keep my recommendation within the evidence?
Summarize the evidence honestly, including conflicting studies, then state what your proposal does not claim. A pilot with local measurement is often the right recommendation when evidence is promising but incomplete.
What is a run chart?
A time-ordered plot of a measure around its median, read with a few simple rules that separate real shifts from noise. It suits small, single-unit improvement projects.
Do I need decision rules in an EBP proposal?
They strengthen it. Stating in advance what results would lead to adoption, revision or discontinuation shows that the pilot is a genuine test rather than a formality.
Who should the proposal be addressed to?
The people who can approve it, such as a nurse manager, medical director or quality committee. Writing to a named audience makes the request and the level of detail clear.